President Donald Trump tried again Tuesday to rewrite the history of US relations with South Korea. Trump has repeatedly delivered false assertions about the payments South Korea has made for decades to help cover the cost of the major US military presence in the country (more than 26,000 personnel as of the end of 2024). On Tuesday, he wrote on social media that he had just spoken with South Korean acting President Han Duck-soo about economic issues and about “payment for the big time Military Protection we provide to South Korea.” Trump then added this: “They began these Military payments during my first term, Billions of Dollars, but Sleepy Joe Biden, for reasons unknown, terminated the deal. That was a shocker to all!” Trump’s claim is false in two big ways. First, South Korea’s payments did not begin during Trump’s first term. The cost-sharing deals known as Special Measures Agreements began in 1991, more than 25 years before Trump took office in 2017. Second, former President Joe Biden did not terminate a Trump cost-sharing agreement with South Korea. The only Special Measures Agreement signed by the Trump administration had expired by the time Biden took office in 2021 – and Biden’s administration then signed two such agreements, one in 2021 and one in 2024, that both included South Korean spending increases. “There was no deal that was ‘terminated,’” Andrew Yeo, a politics professor and Korea expert at The Catholic University of America and The Brookings Institution think tank, said in a Tuesday email. “Trump’s characterization of Biden’s deal with South Korea is inaccurate,” Yonho Kim, an international affairs professor and associate director of the Institute for Korean Studies at The George Washington University, said in a Tuesday email. South Korea increased its payments in both of its cost-sharing deals with Biden Here’s the truth about what happened under Trump and Biden. Trump inherited a South Korea cost-sharing deal negotiated by the Obama administration, which ran from 2014 through 2018. Trump then agreed to a one-year deal for 2019, which secured an 8.2% increase in the South Korean contribution. That one-year Trump deal was the 10th in the series of Special Measures Agreements that started in 1991, so “it wasn’t as if South Korea began its VERY FIRST cost-sharing payments in 2019,” Jiun Bang, a Colorado College international relations professor, said in a Tuesday email. And Trump was unable to get South Korea to agree to the standard multi-year agreement; South Korea rejected his demands for a giant spending increase in the vicinity of 400%, from less than $1 billion per year to $5 billion per year or close. South Korea did come to a smaller deal with the Trump administration in mid-2020 to spend $200 million that year to pay the South Korean employees of US forces, who had been put on leave because Trump’s one-year Special Measures Agreement had lapsed at the end of 2019. But negotiations on a new Special Measures Agreement were still unresolved when Trump left the White House in January 2021. The Biden administration completed the talks in March 2021, agreeing to an 11th Special Measures Agreement to retroactively cover 2020 and continue through 2025. Then, with the possibility of a second Trump term looming, the Biden administration and South Korea signed a 12th agreement in late 2024, to run from 2026 through 2030. Trump claimed during his 2024 presidential campaign that Biden had allowed South Korea’s payments to go “way, way down” to “almost nothing,” but that’s not true, either. South Korea agreed to substantial spending hikes in both of its Biden-era deals. The agreement signed in 2021 included a 2021 increase of 13.9% – meaning South Korea’s payment that year would be about $1 billion – and then additional increases in 2022 through 2025 tied to increases in South Korea’s defense budget. The agreement signed in 2024 is scheduled to begin with an 8.3% increase in 2026 and then additional increases tied to South Korean inflation. Trump baselessly claimed in October 2024, as a presidential candidate, that “if I were there now, they’d be paying us $10 billion a year. And you know what? They’d be happy to do it.”
Fact check: Trump falsely claims Biden ‘terminated’ South Korea deal Biden actually made
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Misrepresents U.S.-South Korea Military Payment Agreements in Recent Claims"
CNN
8.2
TruthLens AI Summary
In a recent social media post, former President Donald Trump made misleading claims regarding U.S. military cost-sharing agreements with South Korea, asserting that President Joe Biden 'terminated' a deal that he had initiated. Trump stated that these military payments began during his administration, suggesting that Biden's actions were a shock to all. However, this assertion is factually incorrect as the Special Measures Agreements, which dictate South Korea's financial contributions to the U.S. military presence in the country, have been in place since 1991, well before Trump's presidency. Furthermore, Biden did not terminate any agreements; rather, the only cost-sharing agreement from Trump's term had expired by the time Biden took office. The Biden administration subsequently negotiated two new agreements that included increases in South Korean payments, countering Trump's claims that the payments had decreased significantly under Biden's leadership.
Experts in international relations have clarified that Trump's characterization of the cost-sharing deals is misleading. The cost-sharing deal that Trump inherited was negotiated during the Obama administration and ran from 2014 to 2018. During his presidency, Trump managed to secure only a temporary one-year deal in 2019, which represented an 8.2% increase in South Korean contributions but fell short of the multi-year agreements he sought. Trump's demands for a massive increase in payments were rejected by South Korea, leading to unresolved negotiations by the time he left office. In contrast, Biden's administration successfully negotiated agreements that included substantial increases in South Korean payments, including a 13.9% increase in 2021 and an 8.3% increase planned for 2026. These developments illustrate a consistent trend of increasing contributions from South Korea, directly contradicting Trump's claims that the payments had diminished significantly under Biden's administration.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article addresses a recent statement by former President Donald Trump regarding U.S. relations with South Korea, specifically his claims about military payments. By fact-checking Trump's assertions, the article aims to clarify misconceptions and present the accurate timeline of cost-sharing agreements.
Objective of the Article
The intent is to correct misinformation propagated by Trump concerning his administration's military funding agreements with South Korea. This aims to inform the public and hold political figures accountable for their statements. By highlighting the inaccuracies, the article seeks to reinforce the idea that factual reporting is essential in political discourse.
Public Perception
The article may influence public perception by portraying Trump as misinformed or intentionally misleading regarding foreign relations. This could foster skepticism among his supporters and detractors alike, shaping views on his credibility as a leader.
Potential Omissions
While the article focuses on Trump's claims, it does not delve deeply into the broader context of U.S.-South Korea relations or the implications of military funding. This could lead to readers missing out on understanding the full picture of geopolitical dynamics at play.
Manipulative Elements
The article maintains a factual tone but might be seen as manipulative in its selective presentation of information. By emphasizing Trump's inaccuracies, it frames him negatively without exploring the complexities of international agreements and negotiations. The language used is assertive, aiming to establish a clear distinction between fact and fiction.
Truthfulness of the Article
The claims made in the article are well-supported by facts and expert opinions, making it a reliable source of information. It references historical agreements and expert commentary, which bolsters its credibility.
Societal Impact
This article could have various implications for society, including increased scrutiny of political figures and their statements. It may also encourage more critical consumption of news among the public, prompting individuals to seek out fact-checking sources.
Target Audience
The article likely resonates more with politically engaged individuals and those critical of Trump, including Democrats and moderate Republicans. It appeals to readers who value accuracy in political reporting.
Market Influence
The article itself might not have a direct impact on stock markets or specific securities. However, it reflects the ongoing political climate, which can influence investor sentiment indirectly, particularly in industries related to defense and international relations.
Geopolitical Relevance
In the context of current international relations, this article underscores the importance of accurate communication in foreign policy. As the U.S. navigates its role in Asia, understanding the nuances of agreements like those with South Korea remains critical.
AI Utilization
It is unlikely that AI played a role in the writing of this article, as it features a straightforward journalistic style typical of human authorship. However, if AI were used, it might have helped in structuring factual data or generating language for clarity. The focus remains on factual reporting rather than persuasive or manipulative language.
In summary, the article is a credible and informative piece that serves to clarify misinformation while emphasizing the importance of accuracy in political statements.